IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE:	    25 March 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013341 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was told that his discharge would be upgraded within 6 months.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with is application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 April 1977 for a period of     3 years, training as an infantryman and assignment to Fort Stewart, Georgia.  He completed his basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and his advanced individual training as an infantryman at Fort Benning, Georgia before being transferred to Fort Stewart, Georgia for his first and only assignment.

3.  On 12 October 1977, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 October to 8 October 1977.

4.  On 14 December 1977, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 21 November to 1 December 1977.

5.  On 31 March 1978, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 
11 March to 27 March 1978.

6.  On 31 March 1978, the applicant’s commander also notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disregard for authority, lack of attention to detail, poor attitude, apathy and inability to expend his efforts constructively. 

7.  The applicant indicated that he concurred with the discharge and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on    12 April 1978 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 27 April 1978 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 due to unsuitability.  He had served 11 months and 8 days of active service and he had 
30 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

10.  There is no evidence in the available record to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  The Department of the Army began testing the EDP in October 1973.  In a message, dated 8 November 1974, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP.  The program provided for the separation of Soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the Army.  Soldiers could be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identified them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  Soldiers considered for separation under this expanded program had to agree to separation under this program.  Soldiers who did not agree to separation under this provision were not exempt from separation under another provision of the regulation.  An honorable or general discharge was required and there has never been any provision for an automatic upgrade of a discharge of less than fully honorable.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of the applicant’s rights.  Accordingly, his discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  However, the evidence of record does not support his contentions and given the circumstances that are documented in the case, his service does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

3.  Additionally, there have never been any provisions for an automatic upgrade of such discharges.

4.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show otherwise, there appears to be no basis to grant his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X____  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




      _______ _ X  _______   ___
       	   CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013341



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013341



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1